The Male Choice Hypothesis: Addressing the Criticisms

Author(s):  
Menelaos Apostolou
Keyword(s):  
2017 ◽  
Vol 284 (1858) ◽  
pp. 20170424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Yun ◽  
Patrick J. Chen ◽  
Amardeep Singh ◽  
Aneil F. Agrawal ◽  
Howard D. Rundle

Recent experiments indicate that male preferential harassment of high-quality females reduces the variance in female fitness, thereby weakening natural selection through females and hampering adaptation and purging. We propose that this phenomenon, which results from a combination of male choice and male-induced harm, should be mediated by the physical environment in which intersexual interactions occur. Using Drosophila melanogaster , we examined intersexual interactions in small and simple (standard fly vials) versus slightly more realistic (small cages with spatial structure) environments. We show that in these more realistic environments, sexual interactions are less frequent, are no longer biased towards high-quality females, and that overall male harm is reduced. Next, we examine the selective advantage of high- over low-quality females while manipulating the opportunity for male choice. Male choice weakens the viability advantage of high-quality females in the simple environment, consistent with previous work, but strengthens selection on females in the more realistic environment. Laboratory studies in simple environments have strongly shaped our understanding of sexual conflict but may provide biased insight. Our results suggest that the physical environment plays a key role in the evolutionary consequences of sexual interactions and ultimately the alignment of natural and sexual selection.


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (20) ◽  
pp. R1177-R1179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cédric Aumont ◽  
David M. Shuker
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Ingo Schlupp

In this chapter, what interests me most is how often male mate choice has already been documented, independent of the underlying mechanism. I am not concerned with the origin of the description: some authors express some degree of surprise that they found male preferences; other studies are motivated by theory. I also want to highlight that there is a continuum from no male contribution to the offspring to male contributions that are larger than the female contribution. Furthermore, there are differences in female quality at different levels, which can contribute to the evolution of male choice. There are many studies that infer differences in female fecundity as underlying male choice, but females can differ in many more aspects—just like males.


2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 658-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey Swierk ◽  
Tracy Langkilde

Abstract Little is known about the operation of male mate choice in systems with perceived high costs to male choosiness. Scramble mating systems are one type of system in which male choice is often considered too costly to be selected. However, in many scramble mating systems, there are also potentially high rewards of male choosiness, as females vary dramatically in reproductive output and males typically mate once per season and/or per lifetime. Using scramble mating wood frogs (Rana sylvatica), we tested whether males gain fitness benefits by mating with preferred females. We conducted choice trials (1 male presented simultaneously with 2 females) and permitted males to mate with their preferred or nonpreferred female. Offspring of preferred and nonpreferred females were reared in the laboratory and field, and we quantified various fitness-relevant parameters, including survivorship and growth rates. Across multiple parameters measured, matings with preferred females produced fewer and lower-quality offspring than did those with nonpreferred females. Our results are inconsistent with the idea that mate choice confers benefits on the choosing sex. We instead propose that, in scramble systems, males will be more likely to amplex females that are easier to capture, which may correlate with lower quality but increases male likelihood of successfully mating. Such male choice may not favor increased fitness when the operational sex ratio is less biased toward males in scramble mating systems but is, instead, a bet-hedging tactic benefitting males when available females are limited.


Biology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 360
Author(s):  
Peter Schausberger ◽  
Yukie Sato

Optimal outbreeding and kin selection theories state that the degree of kinship is a fundamental determinant in any mating system. However, the role of kinship in male choice and alternative reproductive tactics (ARTs) is poorly known. We assessed the influence of kinship on male choice and expression of ARTs in two populations of two-spotted spider mites Tetranychus urticae. Male spider mites guard premature females, which is an indicator of mate choice, and may conditionally adopt fighting or sneaking tactics to secure access to females. Males competing with kin or non-kin were offered one kin or non-kin female (experiment 1) and single males were presented a choice of kin and non-kin females (experiment 2). Under kin competition, males of both populations were more prone to guard non-kin than kin females at a 3:1 fighter:sneaker ratio. Under non-kin competition, all males were fighters. Under no-choice, males used novelty as indicator of genetic dissimilarity, serving as absolute decision rule for outbreeding. Under choice, comparative evaluation allowed males to preferentially guard females with higher reproductive potential. Overall, our study suggests that male spider mites can assess kinship of rivals and prospective mates. Kin discrimination allows adaptive, context-specific non-random mating preference and adjustment of ARTs.


Author(s):  
Ingo Schlupp

In this short chapter I revisit the role that male investment might play in the evolution of male mate choice. Simply put, one might expect with more male investment into reproduction, they may be more selective about with whom they mate. If the male investment is larger than the female investment sex roles are expected to flip. This is, however, not common. But even if males almost never invest as much or more than females, in many species they do invest somewhat, or even heavily. Should this lead to choosiness in males? I will provide a few examples where choosiness may be linked to investment in males.


Brown Trout ◽  
2017 ◽  
pp. 165-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manu Esteve ◽  
Asghar Abdoli ◽  
Iraj Hashemzadeh Segherloo ◽  
Kiavash Golzarianpour ◽  
Amir Abbas Ahmadi

1984 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie K. Johnson ◽  
Stephen P. Hubbell
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document